Leahy comes out against Holy Joe:
We now have our first Dem Senator who has come on the record and called for Joe Lieberman to be booted from his plum spot on the Homeland Security committee.
In an interview with Vermont Public Radio today, Senator Patrick Leahy left no doubt whatsoever: He believes Lieberman should be given the push.
“Every Senator will have to vote the way he or she believes they should,” Leahy said, in a reference to the upcoming vote on Lieberman’s fate in the Dem caucus next week. “I’m one who does not feel that somebody should be rewarded with a major chairmanship after doing what he did.”
If recent history is any guide, I think we can safely say that this issue has been settled and that Joe Lieberman’s chairmanship is… safe. Every time Leahy and Feingold get in a vulcan mindmeld with the progressive wing, we can almost bet that the beltway wing/GOP lite/business as usual crowd of the Democratic caucus are about to send them down the river.
Not that I know what should happen, mind you. My gut says Joe should be dethroned and then beaten to a pulp with videotapes of his Fox appearances from the last six months, but every time I go with my gut, I end up voting for a Bush or supporting a disastrous war.
At any rate, I would guess that if things go like they usually do, a few others will oppose Lieberman (Mikulski and a few others), but he will survive. And then when that happens, we will be treated to all sorts of bitter recriminations, anger, hostility, suspicion, and a rift between the grassroots of the party and the actual congressional delegation will be created before they are even sworn in, all in the shadow of what should be a rather celebratory period for Democrats.
Being a Democrat is awesome. At any rate, I am off to a dinner party. Have fun.
Brian
Dinner party? What time do you folks eat dinner? Are you in France or something?
John Cole
I am getting my hair cut and some other stuff before the party.
Balconesfault
Giving Joe the Chairmanship should be seen as an act of spite directed at Obama, a first shot across the Presidential bow. It’s almost certain that Lieberman will suddenly find his mojo for conducting government oversight, and any talk of pulling his chair at that time will be met with howls from even the mainstream media that the Dems are shooting themselves in the foot.
But the trigger is being pulled now … it will just take awhile for the bullet to reach the foot.
Dennis - SGMM
Something else may be settled too. Via, Think Progress, Palin was not voted into any of the RGA’s leadership positions.
Comrade Tax Analyst
Well, yeah, John – didn’t you read the by-laws? "Hey, we won…now how do we fuck it up?"
JL
How to maintain a chairmanship of Homeland Security.
1. Do a crappy job and don’t investigate failures.
2. Call your party nominee a marxist, muslim and incompetent. (did I miss any)
3. Campaign for Norm Coleman.
4. Did I mention that he was a crappy leader?
Balconesfault
Ironically, if Joe had anything to do with electing a couple Republican Senators, by Democratic logic he ensured his job.
El Cid
I guess a lot of Democratic Senators are just happy saying "I don’t give a flying f*** who chairs the Homeland Security committee and what they do."
By leaving it in the hands of the man who crippled that committee during Bush Jr’s reign, Democratic Senators are defining that entire committee as useless, unimportant, unworthy of serious consideration for its assigned responsibilities and nothing more than a cheap political bribery point.
I’m sure, though, that such as Bayh will express great surprise and disappointment when their grand friend Lieberman uses his authority to begin harassing and subpoena-ing the Obama administration in Starr Chamber II.
Shinobi
Y’know, republicans don’t betray their party like Joe Leiberman does. They just don’t. You know why they don’t? They’d be punished.
By not punishing Joe for his betrayal Dems are ensuring that they will never have any kind of party discipline. Why go with the caucus if the caucus will continue to allow you to have power and influence even after you betray them?
Zifnab
I’m sorry, but are the Democrats really that stupid? Lieberman isn’t even an official member of the party anymore. Is there no one in the entire Democratic Senatorial Caucus who doesn’t want the Homeland Security Chairmanship more than Joe Lieberman?
And – call me crazy – but I was almost under the suspicion that the Democrats in the Senate wanted Obama to win. Joe Lieberman went out of his way to make that not happen. Have the majority of the Democrats been happy with the last eight years – years Lieberman helped facilitate? Did they enjoy getting back benched and picked off by GOoPer thugs like Chambliss and Coleman?
I’m sorry, but I’ve just got to believe that Senate Democrats were pissed at the Bill Frist years. I’ve got to believe they were paying attention when Siegleman got thrown in jail for donating to a public charity. Surely there’s just a little bit of bad blood there. Schumer runs the DSCC – surely he’s not happy with Lieberman fund raising for the opposition. Reid had to go through god knows how many filibuster fights because of Lieberman’s bullshit. Doesn’t that stick? Doesn’t that piss people off? Surely, surely they can’t all forgive and forget so quickly. It boggles my mind.
Comrade Dread
Frankly, I’m just honest to God surprised that the Democrats managed not to screw things up before the election.
tavella
Oh, I knew it was pretty much over when Reid met with Lieberman, said "we want you in Small Business instead of Homeland Security and Government Oversight" and Lieberman said "nope, not acceptable, I’ll be keeping Homeland Security" and Reid cringed and said yessir and had his lieutenants out there whipping to keep him in the chair.
Despite all the fantasies about Reid having Lieberman’s prick in his pocket a la LBJ, it’s clear who owns whose balls, and hint… it’s not Reid.
Rick Taylor had it right, below:
Lieberman will be using HS&GO to undermine Obama at every opportunity, and oh my god, what nonsense that stuff is about removing him if he is a bad boy. First, if the Democrats don’t have the spine to remove him *now*, after he shamelessly slandered their new president, does anyone actually think they’d have the spine to do it later? And even if they miraculously develop such spine, it’s not going to happen, because it requires a senate resolution, which the Republicans and Lieberman will block and wander off laughing.
Senate Democrats: still pathetic spineless wimps.
Dennis - SGMM
The ad in the left gutter asks, "Where can you find Conservative culture?"
Likewise;
Military intelligence
Peacekeeping force
jumbo shrimp
Congressional ethics…
DustPuppyOI
John Scalzi’s take: What’s Really Going On With Joe Lieberman
tavella
Sorry, Dustpuppy. Total fantasy. Lieberman owns Reid’s balls and is telling him what to do, not the other way around.
Tymannosourus
Michael Scott sums up the way I feel about Joe Lieberman so perfectly:
"I hate…… so much about the things that you choose to be."
p.a.
John, you’re not really a Dem. until you prove your intellectual and moral superiority by voting for a hopeless 3rd party candidate out of frustration.
I’ve always considered myself a Dem.-leaning Independent, but now with age and wisdom I know my 1980 presidential vote for National Unity Party’s John Anderson (my 1st pres-eligible election) ironically marked me as a Dem. for life.
Deborah
No, no, I’ve never voted for a Bush, favored Afghanistan but not Iraq, have never been a Democrat, and my gut says Lieberman needs to lose that chairmanship—of Governmental Services, which oversees everything the government does. Just because nothing done by Republicans has roused him to bother using the chairmanship is no reason to trust him with it.
He spent the year trying to elect Republicans. He did nothing to elect Democrats. If the Senate Democratic caucus lets this go, then they’re pretty much living up to every spineless stereotype.
Comrade I, too, am amazed that they left it until mid-November to start looking for ways to lose. (Of course, it’s always possible that they will actually locate their spines and the present gooshiness is just "boy we sure hope he will stay in the caucus because we do love him" cover.)
Balconesfault
Interestingly, that vote (my first as well) was my gateway drug to no longer considering myself Republican. I considered Carter moral but incompetent … and face it, Reagan’s gang looks pretty damn good after 8 years of Bushism.
But Anderson had it right back in 1980 – we needed a 50 cent/gallon gasoline tax. Had we imposed that then, the landscape today would be amazingly different. All those renewables that are being subsidized would have taken off on their own, and we’d be selling the technologies abroad, rather than paying the Spaniards and Danes for them.
JL
@DustPuppyOI: Thanks for the link! It reminds me of the day that Barack asks Joe to step aside for a private conversation. Rumor was that Joe was a tad concerned about his safety.
AhabTRuler
Yes.
The answer to this question is always yes.
(sobs quietly)
dbrown
Obama see’s a possible 60th seat for the Dems and even if that does not occur, one less repub-a-thug he will need to get for 60. Also, whether we like it or not a few dems and repub-a-thugs strongly back the little ass-wipe and will take offense if the turd is stepped on. So Obama does not want to take on this fight until needed. Obama is smart. Win the war and fucking forget about the minor battle here and there.
Looks like the first true planets outside the solar system have been imaged – that is almost as remarkable as our electing a real afro-American as Pres; what next, cheney actting as if he has a soul … nah, that is way too over the top. Maybe a wingnut will see reality and … wait, John did that here already. Might be hope here after all.
Comrade Reverend Stuck
@El Cid:
Normally, I wouldn’t either. But soon after Obama’s inaug. I am predicting we will be inundated with whistleblowers in that wingnut miscreant of a government agency of DHS on how royally fucked up it is. And what that means is actually 21 or 23, i forget, agencies will become a thorn is Obama’s side from day one. It is saturated with wingnut middle managers whose primary purpose will be to piss on every democratic initiative that comes down the pike. IT would be greatly helpful IMo, to not have a vichy democrat spouting love sonnets of bi-partisanship when they should be kicking some serious ass at the DHS.
Comrade Reverend Stuck
@El Cid:
Sorry El Cid. I misread the first part of your comment.
Brian J
Are people being nice to Lieberman, Obama especially, because they have some sort of inside information that leads them to think that getting to 60 is a legitimately great possibility and therefore don’t want to piss him off? What other reason could there be for this sort of behavior? From everything I read, he’s been a crappy chairman, so it’s not as if he has professionalism going for him or anything.
SGEW
This right here is the best justification for not punishing Lieberman that I’ve heard yet. If the Republicans do it, I don’t wanna.
Sen. Lieberman’s views should be respected, and his freedom of expression preserved (cough choke gasp gag). Because of the principle of the matter (choke choke gasp). We may not agree with what he has to say, but we’ll . . . um . . . vote safely for his right to say it. Or something.
Republicans – Politics Over Principle! Winning is everything!
Democrats – Principle Over Politics! Even if we lose everything!
What a country.
jake 4 that 1
@DustPuppyOI: You beat me to it.
LOLs
The Bag of Health and Politics
I wouldn’t be so sure.
In the no to Lieberman camp we have:
Feingold
Lehay
In the yes to Lieberman camp we have:
Bayh.
There are Senators who you would expect to vote for Lieberman–Feinstein of California, etc–that won’t because they need to keep the base happy for future runs at higher office (Governor). Then you have people like the Udalls, Merkely, Shaheen, Mark Warner, Mark Begich, and perhaps Al Franken–all new Senators get a vote–who owe Lieberman absolutely nothing. This guy came to their states and campaigned with the Republican ticket, and spoke glowingly of their Republican opponents. You think they’re going to vote for him? I doubt it.
Then you have the Obama allies–McCaskill, Bob Casey, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Ben Cardin, Barbara Mikulski, Joe Biden (he still gets a vote until he resigns, though I bet he ducks it), Tom Carper, Maria Cantwell, and the list goes on.
In short, anybody who was just elected, or just ran, is not predisposed to vote for Lieberman. Those who stuck their necks out for the President-elect, and had to deal with Republican sniping based on Joe Lieberman’s claims are not likely to vote for Lieberman. Those facing re-election in two years–those that need the internet cash machine, which is pissed at Joe, are not likely to vote for Lieberman.
Who is likely to vote for Lieberman? Those who are retiring in two years–the old boys club. Lieberman will be lucky to get 15 votes. Obama spoke up in favor of Lieberman so he doesn’t get the flack for being the jerk that booted Joe out of recrimination. But he hired a good vote counter; Rahm knows that Joe doesn’t have the votes…
TheHatOnMyCat
Beating up Joe is a gut reaction. It’s not a cool headed reaction.
Another way to say this is, beating up on Joe is a Republican reaction. I don’t think like a Republican, but most Dems who hang with the blogs seem to.
A vote in the Senate is a vote. I wouldn’t throw one away just for the satisfaction of some revenge.
But that’s just me.
Comrade Reverend Stuck
@The Bag of Health and Politics:
Actually the vote is set to occur next week, I believe on Tuesday. So the newly elected senators won’t be voting since they aren’t senators yet.
Svensker
I sure the hell hope so. Holy Joe is such a…what’s the word? Shmendrick? Hmmmm, more like shnorrer, with judicious admixtures of shmuck.
And if the Dems vote to keep him in? Shmoes,the lot of them.
qwerty42
Valid point – and planning ahead is good. But move him to another committee. he can be the gd chair, but nothing related to security or foreign policy. That’s over.
TheHatOnMyCat
Sure. But one of the most conciliatory voices on this subject lately has been that of Barack Obama.
Barack was just described on Hardball by Jennifer Donahue (N.H. Institute of Politics) as "thinking two steps ahead of everyone else, that’s how he got here."
I’d be inclined to go with Barack’s instincts on this and ignore the blogs.
TheHatOnMyCat
You make a good point. I think it exposes the true nature of the controversy in the Senate. It all boils down to a power struggle down there on the floor. How much power does JL actually have? And how much do his enemies have?
I don’t know. Whatever the answer, we will probably find out before long.
If this power struggle produces a new member of the Republican caucus, then I think we lose. That’s my instinct on this.
John S.
Come on, TZ, you know that stripping Lieberman of his committee chair =/= throwing him out of the caucus.
And if Joe decides to leave the caucus as a result of losing his committee chair (in an area where he can wreak havoc on behalf of the GOP), do you really think he’s going to start voting with the GOP on all their stupid social issues just out of spite?
I think Lieberman is smart enough to agree with your premise that throwing away the rest of his already shaky political career for the satisfaction of revenge would be pretty stupid.
Vincent
I don’t care if Lieberman stays in the caucus, but it seems so unbelievably obvious that he shouldn’t keep the chairmanship. He doesn’t even have competent stewardship of the committee to fall back on so I don’t see any reason whatsoever to let him keep it. Why do so many Senators especially ones like Dodd or Bayh keep sticking up for him? Friendship or loyalty or whatever should only go so far!
The Bag of Health and Politics
The vote is occurring next week, but it’s at the first caucus meeting of the NEXT congress. The newly elected Senators, though not sworn-in yet, will get to vote. And I’m guessing that they’re not voting for Joe.
John S.
We may lose temporarily, but in 2010, Joe Lieberman loses permamently.
It’s doubtful he will be re-elected regardless, but he will certainly NOT be re-elected as a Republican.
tavella
It’s not about revenge, it’s not about punishment. Yes, there are people who want to see him screwed, and justifiably so, but it’s cold eyed logic that says leaving him chair of Government Oversight is nuts.
Leave him in the caucus? Sure, what do we care who wants to call themselves a Democrat. Give him a chairmanship? In an abstract sense, ridiculous, since there are dozens of actual Democrat senators who don’t have one, but whatever, I’m more of a practical politics person and if they think it’s useful enough to cut a deal with him, fine.
But *that* chairmanship? The one that is perfectly positioned to issue subpoenas over every single aspect of the government? The one where Lieberman did nothing with for two years, saw no need to hold any actual oversight hearings against Bush? Yet is so desperate to hold on to? Pure logic says because he plans to use it against Obama. Because there is *nothing* that Lieberman loves better than being enthroned on the Sunday talkers, surrounded by right wing pundits telling him what a heroic maverick he is for undercutting and sabotaging Democrats.
Laura W
"Have Fun" means "Open Thread", right?
Tonight’s Installment of Balloon Wine Juice brought to you by: Bitter Childless Women with Degrees.
2007 Yellow Tail Rose: Too sweet. And too funky in the acid realm. (Take that as you will.) Not as sweet as Beringer’s White Merlot, but close enough for comparison.
The same $5.50/.750ml is far better spent on Concha y Toro Frontera Rosé Wine. (All the way from Chile, y’all.)
If you want to pay twice that, I would recommend Bonny Doon Vin Gris de Cigare (and another Rose I found at my local organic market twice but can not recall tonight to save my life since I finally just recycled for the first time in 9 months. Will look into it and get back to ya!)
John Harwood reports that Cabernet is being served tonight at the G-20 Economic Summit dinner. I can only hope it’s the Groth 1985 Reserve.
SGEW
Huzzah! Bitter Childless Women with Degrees are my favorite!
Particularly if the degrees are in English, Women’s Studies, and Philosophy. Masters and above, please. PhDs for extra bitterness.
However, I’ve also appreciated the combo of Mathmatics, Anthropology, and Computational Cognition. There’s no accounting for taste.
Comrade Reverend Stuck
@The Bag of Health and Politics:
You are right.
Perry Como
Leave it to a moonbat to say something like this. How many terrorist attacks have occurred in the US since Lieberman has been chairing the Homeland Security Committee? He’s doing a great job.
Ash Can
While I don’t think the Senate Dems should just ignore everything that Lieberman said and did during the presidential campaign, this reminds me that Senate food fights aren’t the be-all and end-all of DC politics in general, and the transition to the Obama Administration in particular: the Obama-Biden Transition Team is conducting a thorough review of federal departments and agencies in anticipation of the new administration taking over. I hope they use lots of disinfectants and drain cleaner.
aarrgghh
last month a commenter at talking points memo offered this description of joe, via disraeli:
TheHatOnMyCat
Not sure. It depends on what he can get from the other side. If he can go from being an outcast Dem to being a heroic figure in the minority, he might go for it.
As for his election chances as a Republican, I have no idea whatever. The only people who really know where the power is in this transaction, I think, are the participants. We’ll see how they play it out.
Brian J
How can you be so sure?
Dennis - SGMM
@Perry Como:
No elephant stampedes either. That Joe’s a pistol.
JL
@TheHatOnMyCat: Joe’s approval ratings are pretty low. Joe could resign his seat and let the Republican governor appoint a replacement to serve out his term. IMO the democrats don’t need him. There are still a few moderate Republicans that will side with the democrats on important issues, i.e. Olympia Snowe.
Frank
Welcome to being a Democrat.
It is a frustrating and maddening and often saddening thing to be.
The only good thing to say about it is that it beats the hell out of the alternative.
JL
@Laura W: This is the wine list for tonight’s dinner for the G20.
Landmark Chardonnay “Damaris Reserve” 2006
Shafer Cabernet “Hillside Select” 2003
Chandon Étoile Rosé
Sirkowski
Leahy is not afraid of the Joeker.
justcorbly
We need Lieberman’s vote more than we need to display our ideological wrath. That’s Republican territory. Let them, not us, go down in flames because they think purity of thought takes precedence over winning.
Punchy
Dinner party? DAMN you’re old
Laura W
@JL: Oh yum! You’re good. And far less lazy than I in terms of taking the time to research it. If I’m not mistaken, all three are Napa/Sonoma appellation wines. Now I have to go find out what they are pairing with the Chandon Étoile Rosé.
That is just food/wine lover porn, there.
Dennis - SGMM
Isn’t just having to through life as Joe Lieberman punishment enough?
demimondian
@Comrade Dread: Seriously, we just got distracted. Give us some time, man.
Perry Como
@Dennis – SGMM: Senator Lieberman is not on any elephant related committees afaik.
Dennis - SGMM
Heard on NPR that in addition to the traditional weekly radio address, Obama will release a video version on YouTube.
Zifnab
@justcorbly: Could we use his vote? Sure. Is it worth a chairmanship on Homeland Security? Uh… no. There are cheaper ways to win votes than giving a full blown committee to a Republican. Might as well turn the Majority Leader’s gavel over to Mitch McConnell because zomg! maybe he’ll vote with us on something.
Chairmanships aren’t just fancy titles. They come with serious political power. That’s not the sort of thing you just pass out for kicks.
This thread is now filibuster proof!
oh really
Now Bernie Sanders has joined Leahy.
That’s two vertebrae. Is a whole Democratic spine possible?
Laura W
@SGEW: You got sumpin’ agin’ Psychology?
demimondian
@Laura W: Hey! I used to do theoretical psychology. No dissin’ psych!
Tymannosourus
Lieberman is a rudderless chickenhawk who deserves whatever punishment might come his way.
I understand that he might be a useful tool in the months that lie ahead, but you know what else are useful tools for persuadin’? Cattle Prods, Duct Tape and Channel Locks… but that doesn’t mean that it is in the dems best interests to actually use them.
Laura W
@demimondian: No, not from me. My only mistake was starting out with "Developmental Psych", and then I realized that meant you had to work with kids. Ick.
(No offense to you perfect BJ parents with kids. I mean that. Someone’s got to do it.)
Just Some Fuckhead
Uh, you got that backwards. In the situation you describe, Republicans would be damning politics for the principle of loyalty, Conversely, Democrats are sacrificing the principle of loyalty for cheap political gain.
JL
Laura, Time.com, the page, had the menu.
Fruitwood-smoked Quail with Quince Gastrique
Quinoa Risotto
Landmark Chardonnay “Damaris Reserve” 2006
Thyme-roasted Rack of Lamb
Tomato, Fennel and Eggplant Fondue
Chanterelle Jus
Shafer Cabernet “Hillside Select” 2003
Lolla Rosa, Red Oak and Endive
Cider Vinaigrette
Baked Vermont Brie with Walnut Crostini
Pear Torte
Huckleberry Sauce
Chandon Étoile Rosé
SGEW
Certainly not, as a field in and of itself, naturally. Some of my best friends have psychology degrees.
It’s just not to my particular taste, re: Bitter Degree Holding Women. Too, well, quotidian. No offense.
Give me 15th Century Urdu Linguistics with a double bachelor’s in, oh, say, engineering and queer theory. That’s the stuff!
SGEW
Hmmm. Loyalty as a principle? Sorry, I see partisan party "loyalty" as purely political, and not a matter of deeper principle.
Laura W
@SGEW:
I’ll have you know I just googled "quotidian". Dime a dozen, huh?
NO OFFENSE TAKEN.
Really.
I mean it.
Formica
Ah, the Democrats. The battered spouses of American politics. Always hoping, against hope, that the Republicans will change if they just give them another chance.
And Joe? Joe’s the one "they can talk to", who turns right around and tells the Republicans, so they can beat the Democrats again for giving them lip.
And this is when they win.
Brian J
He’s a compromise. Lieberman does his best impression of Heath Ledger in that scene, with Leahy playing his role, and various assorted members of congress playing the other party guests. This is recorded, and then broadcast on YouTube and any network that wants to see it. Then maybe, just maybe, he’ll get to keep his committee chairmanship.
Does that sound fair?
Dennis - SGMM
Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan) was just on Tweety’s show explaining why the Big Three automakers should get a chunk of all that luscious bailout money. Seeing her with her hat in her hand reminded me that Stabenow, among many others, has steadfastly resisted any legislation that would have caused Detroit to raise mileage, increase efficiency or that would in any way dissuade people from buying gas guzzling land yachts. They contributed to Detroit’s failure just as surely as anyone else did.
Just Some Fuckhead
@SGEW: Then to what principle are Democrats hewing to the detriment of "politics"?
SGEW
No no! I meant quotidian as in "every day," or "a common occurence": i.e., actually used in every day life. Much like, say, Veterinary Medicine: a very noble, difficult, and intensely important field. But I saw a vet today, and gave her lots and lots of money.
In other words: Psychology Degrees may be of actual use, unlike my aforementioned list of unusual and lamentably quixotic fields. Dig?
Dennis - SGMM
@Just Some Fuckhead:
The principle that testicles can not be regrown.
SGEW
I was being a bit snide about it, obviously, but I imagine that the principle would be: Joe Lieberman said what he believed during the campaign (i.e., John McCain would be a better C-in-C than Obama, etc.*). He should not be "punished" for expressing his sincere beliefs; beliefs that do not disqualify him from his caucusing with the Democratic Party as an Independent (like Bernie Sanders), as various actual Democrats (cough Clinton cough) said similar things during the campaign season, nor does it impact his work as a committee chair. Therefore, as President-Elect Obama has implied, everything else is just politics, and should be forgotten.
Shorter: The "principle" is "freedom of expression" versus political haggling over a magic number.
*Note well: I am putting the absolute most positive spin on Lieberman’s words and actions. I, personally, have been appalled, and hate him more than Zell Miller. But then, I’m not as cool-headeed as Obama is.
Laura W
@SGEW: I accept your apology.
demimondian
@SGEW: Hint…quit while you’re ahead.
SGEW
@Laura W: Did I apologize? ;|
Just Some Fuckhead
Look, we can argue over semantics but the fact is the Republicans would be doing the right thing by sacking a Liebermanesque Republican in their caucus. It’s really a no-brainer and it doesn’t mean they’re favoring politics over principle or illustrating the opposite of everything Democrats are supposed to be or some other nonsense.
And Democrats won’t do it because it’s the clearly right thing to do. The wrong thing to do is leave that asshat in charge of anything meaningful that the Democratic party has been charged to keep. Both because he was incompetent and/or uncaring of his oversight duties thus far and because he has proven again and again he can’t be trusted to do the right thing by Democrats.
Brian J
On "The NewsHour" just now, David Brooks mentioned that we had about $300 billion in stimulus already this year. Maybe I missed something, but was it really that high? And wasn’t it mostly in the form of checks, not infrastructure investment and so forth?
Just Some Fuckhead
But you have it exactly backwards again. The Democrats are not hanging on to Lieberman because they’re concerned about his freedom of expression. They are hanging on to him because they think there is some special magic number he will help them reach, ie. politics.
SGEW
@Just Some Fuckhead: I totally agree with you, more or less (has Lieberman been "incompetent"? Uncaring, sure, but show me who has been caring in their "oversight duties" in Congress?!?*).
I was more getting at the Democratic Party’s rather unfortunate history of being mealy-mouthed wimps who hide behind their professed principles, mixed with the whole "Team of Rivals" notion, where Obama can pull in a governing coalition of everyone from Lieberman (Independent) to Bernie Sanders (Independent), with all the Democrats (and a few Republicans?) in between them.
*Ok. There have been a few. But come on.
SGEW
I know! I was being ironic.
(edit: or was I?! I can’t tell anymore!! Politics has destroyed everything I once held dear!)
Laura W
@SGEW:
Deep, cleansing, toxin-releasing breath…..
You are safe….
You are loved…..
You are a Democratic child of the Universe…..
All better now, ‘kay?
Just Some Fuckhead
@SGEW:
We’re done. Yer like a goddamned
tarbabychinese finger puzzle.Dennis - SGMM
SGEW,
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: if a woman asks you "Does this make me look fat?" you must feign a heart attack.
El Cid
Is it so weird to want someone to head the Homeland Security committee who might, you know, actually give the slightest damn about that committee, and wielding authority in its intended manner?
Joe Lieberman used his chairmanship authority to protect the Bush Jr. administration from any oversight.
An incompetent, dishonest, untrustworthy fool should not be in charge of one of the most important Senate committees we have.
Just Some Fuckhead
Mrs. Fuckhead asked me a version of that question once, "Does the mirror make me look fat?" and I tried to empathize, "Yeah, and the fridge is making you eat."
Dennis - SGMM
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Oh, man. You must like sleeping on the couch.
Roza Hussein
your are correct my leege
Xenos
@Laura W:
There really is no accounting for taste. But then, I drink wine out of those collapsible plastic thingies, too. Got to save my money for important things, like beer. That and the big family membership packages at science museums.
dr. bloor
I think we’re getting a clue as to where your name came from.
OT, but I just made the mistake of wandering over to Hillary is 44 after seeing reports that Obama has offered her SecState. My mistake. Their thinking is now several notches beyond clinically paranoid.
SGEW
I am offended on at least two levels, both of them racial. Seriously. Maybe. Wait. Am I?
That thing you just did. Don’t do that. It is bad for you.
Also, O/T:
Charlie Cook, via Sully, has this to say about the G.O.P.’s sad fate:
Gosh. What do you think, Mr. Cole?
Blue Raven
Useless degree I started but never got: theater arts with acting emphasis, double minor in music and English. At a college famous for women’s studies, psychology, and liberal arts degrees with even less usefulness than the one I wanted. OK, yes, I may actually be bitter…
Dennis - SGMM
The post titled "Obama Is The Third Bush Term," was particularly well-reasoned and insightful. I’d guess that they’re trying to drive traffic by becoming the most hallucinatory and spittle-flecked PUMA site.
SGEW
See, now that’s what I’m talking about. Throw a philosophy degree in there and you’re cooking.
The sad thing is, it’ll probably work. Funny how you can make a living nowadays.
Dennis - SGMM
@Blue Raven:
Try an English/Lit degree. It qualified me to learn to run a lathe to keep from starving.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Dennis – SGMM:
I’m far too hale to pull off a heart attack convicingly. My hand was forced.
eyelessgame
"Well, I’ve been listening to my gut since I was 14 years old, and frankly speaking, I’ve come to the conclusion that my guts have shit for brains." – John Cusack, "High Fidelity"
Aaron
Why won’t lieberman happen: Maddow.
Chuck Butcher
Obama’s statement Re: Lieberman was that he’d like to see him stay in the Caucus – and that he’d stay out of the Chair question.
I don’t care for revenge, I care about clear realistic thinking and where I landed is Homeland Joe, I Think No. I’m not pissed at Joe, I just don’t want to practice politics his way and don’t see what his keeping the Chair is supposed to accomplish. I don’t care to rewrite it here, it’s there already.
Don’t think I don’t advocate GeorgeII and his cronies in orange jumpsuits and manacles, that’s not revenge, it’s pre-emption of further such nonsense. The "Most Powerful Man on Earth" is the one that turns the key on your cell door.
eyeball
Make him ambassador to israel:
– it’s a crappy job.
– he’d have to work for Hillary.
– Bill would live up his ass.
– he might become a citizen and become their problem.
John, don’t worry — he’s toast. he’s going to be the progressive blogosphere’s first scalp. it is written.
Xenos
In a sense, Lieberman is already scalped. Losing to Ned Lamont in the primary cost Lieberman the credibility he might have had speaking as a an actual democrat. He swayed fewer votes than Zell Miller, which is saying something.
Lieberman just does not know he has been scalped, or at least has gotten away with pretending it has not happened. My money is on the O Team having cooked up a number of ways to make him irrelevant, even if he holds the committee seat.
Jill
I’m just wondering what information about top Democrats that was compiled in that switch room in San Francisco the Bush Administration decided to give Holy Joe to use as leverage.
Continuum
If Obama really wants the Dem caucus to go easy on Lieberman, then it is a puzzlement.
Obama has certainly proven his ability as an organizer and campaigner. However, will Obama prove his ability as a politician working with the legislature?
I’m not sure.
Hopefully, Obama may better understand the Lieberman machinations than most of us on the outside.
My gut says to toss Lieberman to the Republicans (if they truly would take him, or even trust him given his turncoat reputation). But, then again, I’m not much of a politician.
p.a.
I’ve seen many ‘Joe will get it in 2010’ comments here. Am I wrong or is he not up for reelection until 2012?
He has said his support for McShame is a matter of conscience (I know, I know he lied about how far he would go in support of McPalin); then can’t his ouster as committee chair also be a matter of conscience? Then let him be judged by his actions re: his party affiliation.
MNPundit (still a Jackass)
Hey, is it too soon for Ned Lamont to start running again? Is there a way for Connecticut to remove a senator?